Teacher Education Accountability Report - South Dakota Board of

Document Sample
Teacher Education Accountability Report - South Dakota Board of Powered By Docstoc
					                           SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS

                                            Full Board

                                                                           AGENDA ITEM: J – 7

                                                                          DATE: August 11, 2011

*******************************************************************************

SUBJECT: 2009-2010 Teacher Education Accountability Report

        Given their social, cultural, and economic importance, teacher education units are held to a
high standard of accountability. South Dakota’s schools of education face pressures from state and
federal governments, independent accrediting agencies, and the public at large to demonstrate their
effectiveness in preparing highly qualified P-12 teachers. Consequently, the annual Teacher
Education Accountability Report provides a data-driven snapshot of the five teacher education units
in the Regental system with respect to an array of performance measures. Attachment I (Executive
Summary) reviews the key observations from this year’s analysis, while Attachment II (Full Report)
presents a detailed examination of relevant indicators.




***************************************************************************
           RECOMMENDED ACTION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

       Information only.
                                                                                                                 2

                                                                                                Attachment I

                                           Executive Summary

The schools of education at Black Hills State University, Dakota State University, Northern State
University, South Dakota State University, and the University of South Dakota hold primary
responsibility for the preparation of the state’s teaching labor force. These units are tasked with
ensuring that teachers prepared at our public institutions have the content knowledge and
pedagogical skills that are necessary for success in P-12 classrooms. The 2009-2010 Teacher
Education Accountability Report compiles unit, program, and candidate data into one combined
report to increase the transparency of these education units. Overall, the content of this report is
structured around two main areas of interest:

     1) Outcomes of unit- and program-level review efforts by national and state bodies, and
     2) Indicators of the preparation and performance of program candidates and graduates.

As presented in the proceeding pages, key observations from this year’s Teacher Education
Accountability Report include:

NCATE and SDDOE Unit Review

     The state’s five teacher education divisions are subject to periodic “unit”
      (comprehensive) review by two bodies: the National Council for Accreditation of
      Teacher Education (NCATE) and the South Dakota Department of Education (SDDOE).
      Unit review is based on an extensive performance standard framework that has been
      jointly adopted by these two bodies. Because unit reviews are conducted on a staggered
      seven-year cycle, none of the state’s Regental institutions underwent a unit review during
      the 2009-2010 academic year. 1 All five units currently hold full accreditation/approval
      as a result of their most recent unit reviews.
     The South Dakota Department of Education (SDDOE) also evaluates the state’s teacher
      education units with respect to performance criteria laid out in the federal Higher
      Education Act (HEA Title II). These reviews are conducted on an annual basis and are
      grounded in a brief series of performance criteria. All five Regental units met 100.0% of
      these performance criteria during their most recent evaluations. 2

SDDOE Program Review

     Program review (i.e., the evaluation of specific teacher education tracks within a given
      education unit) occurs as a preliminary step in the overarching unit review process.
      Program reviews are conducted by SDDOE using professional standards promulgated in
      ARSD 23:53. No Regental institution completed its cyclical SDDOE program review
      during the 2009-2010 academic year.

1
  BHSU is the next Regental institution scheduled for NCATE/SDDOE unit review; a continuing accreditation/
approval decision will be issued sometime after BHSU’s 2011 site visit.
2
  SDDOE Title II unit reviews are conducted using lagged data. The most recent reviews were conducted in 2008-
2009.
3


Teacher Education Candidates: Programs and Completions

       Teacher education “candidates” include those students who have been formally admitted
        to a teacher education program at a Regental institution. Among all undergraduate
        teacher education candidates in 2009-2010, elementary education (n=477), special
        education (n=152), history (n=144), physical education (n=119), and music (n=114)
        represented the five largest program areas. A total of 155 students were enrolled in
        STEM programs with emphasis in mathematics and science. Among post-graduate
        candidates, the five largest program areas were educational administration (n=193),
        curriculum and instruction (n=189), counseling and psychology in education (n=103),
        teaching and learning (n=74), and counseling (n=48). A total of 61 candidates were
        enrolled in alternative certification programs during 2009-2010.
       Overall, SDSU (n=481; 30.7%) was the largest enroller of undergraduate teacher
        education candidates; USD (n=491; 59.9%) was the leading institution among post-
        graduates.
       According to data reported by SDDOE to the federal government, the number of
        “completers” (those graduating from a teacher education program) rose 22.6% from
        2008-2009 (n=393) to 2009-2010 (n=482).

Teacher Education Candidates: Academic Preparation and Performance

       Candidates applying for initial certification in the state of South Dakota are required by
        ARSD 24:15:02:08 to meet qualifying scores on the appropriate 1) Praxis II Subject
        Assessment(s) and 2) Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) Test(s) as
        determined by their intended professional area(s). For candidates enrolled in 2009-2010,
        the system-wide cumulative pass rate for these qualifying exams was 98.4%. Pass rates
        were relatively even across most exams and institutions. Over the last five years, the
        system-wide cumulative pass rate has held steadily at or near this level.
       All degree-seeking Regental undergraduates are required by BOR Policy 2:28 to sit for
        and meet qualifying scores on the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency
        (CAAP), SDBOR’s primary assessment of academic proficiency. Analysis of 2009-2010
        CAAP data suggests that teacher education candidates tended to perform at least as well
        as the general student population on this assessment. In fact, teacher education
        candidates produced slightly higher pass rates (when compared to all other students) on
        all four CAAP subtests. 3 Candidates’ mean scores exceeded those of the comparison
        group on three of the four subtests (writing skills, mathematics, and reading).
       Analysis of the same dataset used for the CAAP comparison found that the ACT scores
        of teacher education candidates tend to be representative of the broader student body. As
        a group, teacher education candidates scored marginally higher than the general
        population on the English and mathematics ACT subtests, while non-candidates obtained
        slightly higher scores on the science reasoning subtest. Composite ACT scores for these
        groups were nearly indistinct. Over the last five years, the composite ACT scores of
        candidates and non-candidates have diverged by an average of only one-tenth of one
        point.


3
    The four CAAP subtests are writing skills, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning.
                                                                                                 4

                                                                                    Attachment II

                                             Full Report
This report pursues two primary goals: 1) demonstrating Regental teacher education program
compliance with federal, state, and accreditation agency requirements; and 2) assuring that
programs produce students able to support P-12 learning in South Dakota. The report is
organized accordingly. First, the report presents an overview of the performance of Regental
institutions in various national (NCATE) and state (SDDOE) review efforts. Second, the report
summarizes the state’s population of current teacher education candidates and recent completers,
and follows with an examination of these individuals’ outcomes on a series of standardized
assessments. Preliminary to these sections, the report begins with a brief review of the state’s
recent teacher education policy initiatives.

Background: System-Level Teacher Education Initiatives

At its annual retreat in 2006, the Board of Regents commissioned a system-wide review of
programs in teacher education. The main goal of this review was to align the state’s teacher
education programs with 1) the needs of P-12 schools and 2) the expectations of state leaders that
the mission of the university system be met. Consequently, the review involved program and
university representatives, as well as leaders from state government. The recommendations from
the system-wide review were presented at the May 2007 Board of Regents meeting, and the
Board asked that plans to address these recommendations be developed and implemented. The
deans responsible for the teacher education programs and the Education Discipline Council
(EDC) developed a series of action steps that followed from the four areas that were included in
the report: technology, partnerships, recruitment, and assessment. The EDC has continued to use
these recommendations to guide the development of its goals, and a number of the activities of
the EDC follow directly from this.

One of the critical issues identified by the system-wide review was the need to prepare
candidates to teach in a technology-rich environment. At the start of the 2008-2009 academic
year, the Board of Regents aggressively pursued a system-wide mobile computing initiative.
Steps were taken prior to the start of the academic year to provide teacher education faculty with
training for implementation in practicum-level courses; however, progress was interrupted as
campuses struggled to obtain computer hardware (i.e., acquiring Gateway computers through the
state bidding process). During its December 2008 meeting, the Board deferred action on the
system-wide initiative, asking that institutional leadership aggressively pursue a ubiquitous
computing environment. A per credit hour fee was approved in April 2009, with a portion
devoted to the ongoing professional development activities of faculty in teacher education and
related content fields. BHSU and NSU both secured performance-based funds to expand pilot
programs on their campuses. Additional professional development activities were made
available to faculty at the three other institutions, and the infrastructure necessary for managing
the ubiquitous environment was finalized prior to the start of the 2009-2010 academic year.
Campuses are now well positioned to integrate technology into the teaching and learning process
as wireless capacity has been expanded. A system-wide survey was developed and administered
in Fall 2010 to collect user feedback on the Regental mobile computing initiative. The results of
this survey were presented to the Board of Regents in May 2011.
5


A second issue the EDC elected to address was the need to increase the number of teacher
candidates and graduates in high-need areas. The EDC had been monitoring four content areas
(math, science, special education, and speech), but further expanded this list to address nine
additional subject areas defined by the US Department of Education as high-need areas: 1) Art;
2) Career and Technical Education; 3) English as a New Language; 4) Health; 5) Music; 6)
Physical Education; 7) Social Science; 8) Language Arts; and 9) World Languages. Starting in
the 2008-2009 academic year, those students applying to one of the six Regental institutions
were asked to indicate their interest in using their degree to pursue a career in education. Using
this flag, teacher education programs now have the capacity to identify undergraduate candidates
who have expressed an interest in teaching as they enter the system rather than waiting until they
are formally admitted into the program. Campus personnel have begun to assimilate data from
these students in their yearly recruitment efforts. The data are also useful in meeting reporting
requirements for NCATE and the Higher Education Reauthorization Act which require
institutions to track the outcomes of interested students.

Finally, another of the major areas of concern noted in the system-wide review is the continued
difficulty faced by South Dakota’s school districts in attracting candidates in high-demand areas;
some rural districts are, in fact, unable to attract qualified applicants for any teaching positions.
A common approach for addressing this challenge has been to offer online opportunities for
place-bound students. In response, the EDC collaborated to develop a secondary education
certification program for distance delivery that included a common set of course requirements.
The program was approved by the Board of Regents in December 2008, and a series of steps was
undertaken with the SD Department of Education, SD Associated School Boards, and the
Regental Electronic University Consortium to aggressively market and advertise the program.
TEACH Grants also are being used to provide tuition assistance to participants in such fields as
mathematics, science, and special education. TEACH Grants of up to $4,000 are available to
students in hard-to-staff fields who agree to complete a four-year teaching service obligation at a
school that serves low-income students. Altogether, 159 undergraduate and graduate students
received a TEACH Grant in 2010-2011, totaling $554,034 in grant support. A majority of these
students were enrolled at BHSU (n=83) or NSU (n=63). The most common majors among these
recipients were elementary/special education (n=58), mathematics education (n=20), and music
education (n=15).


Unit Review: NCATE and SDDOE

SDBOR’s five teacher education divisions are subject to “unit” (comprehensive) review by two
accrediting/approving bodies: the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) and the South Dakota Department of Education (SDDOE). The first, NCATE, is a
USDOE-recognized accrediting body for teacher education units that prepare teachers and other
professional personnel for work in elementary and secondary schools. As a voluntary quality
assurance mechanism, NCATE accreditation requires institutions to demonstrate adequate
performance along a number of performance standards. 4 Second, ARSD 24:53:02:01 requires
teacher education units to undergo periodic examination and approval by SDDOE, also under a

4
    NCATE periodically revises its unit standards to ensure that they reflect current and empirically-supported content.
                                                                                                                   6


performance standard system. NCATE and SDDOE currently maintain a partnership agreement
whereby the above unit reviews are conducted jointly in an effort to reduce costs associated with
the review process. While the overall unit review process is streamlined by this partnership,
certain substantive and procedural aspects of the review protocol remain somewhat separate.

The unit review process for the state’s teacher education units is delineated in the South Dakota /
NCATE Partnership Protocol for Initial/Continuing/Probation Reviews document, as well
SDDOE’s Unit and Program Approval Review Handbook. Every seven years, each
accreditation/approval-seeking institution is asked to complete a comprehensive self-study that
includes: a summary of the unit’s mission, structures, and programs; an overview of the unit’s
conceptual framework; and a description of the unit’s efforts to satisfy each NCATE unit
standard. 5 On-site review teams, consisting of representatives from the NCATE Board of
Examiners and the SDDOE Board of Examiners, are responsible for reviewing the self-study and
ensuring that programs meet all established standards. Once the review team arrives on-site,
team members rely on a range of information sources (including formal documentation,
assessment data, and interviews) to verify standard compliance as asserted in the self-study.

Once the on-site review is complete, the review team makes written recommendations with
respect to each standard. The NCATE Board of Examiners Report offers a preliminary decision
for each standard, whereby each standard is judged to be either “met” or “not met.” Whether
met or not met, standards may also receive “areas for improvement” notation by the review
team. 6 Units are given an opportunity to offer a rejoinder to the review team’s recommendations
in order to clarify potential areas of misunderstanding. The NCATE Board of Examiners Report
and subsequent rejoinders are submitted to the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board which then
issues an accreditation decision. State representatives on the NCATE/SDDOE review team
author their own preliminary report with respect to the six performance standards, to which the
unit is similarly allowed to offer a rejoinder. The state’s report centers on evidence from both
the on-site unit review and the preceding program review process (discussed below).
Responsibility for final SDDOE approval of the unit rests with the state Board of Education. For
both NCATE accreditation and SDDOE approval, units must meet all six standards to receive
continuing accreditation. All Regental institutions were successfully reaccredited (NCATE) or
reapproved (SDDOE) during their most recent unit reviews (see Table 1).

                                           Table 1
             Most Recent NCATE/SDDOE Unit Review: Standards Meeting Review Guidelines
                                                           BHSU       DSU        NSU        SDSU           USD
    NCATE Standard                                         (2003)    (2009)     (2006)      (2004)        (2004)
    1.   Candidate Knowledge, Skills & Disposition          Met       Met        Met        Met           Met
    2.   Assessment system & Unit Evaluation                Met       Met        Met        Met           Met
    3.   Field Experience and Clinical Practice             Met       Met        Met        Met           Met
    4.   Diversity                                          Met       Met        Met        Met           Met
    5.   Faculty Qualifications, Perf. & Development        Met       Met        Met        Met           Met
    6.   Unit Governance & Resources                        Met       Met        Met        Met           Met


5
    NCATE unit standards serve as the evaluative basis for both NCATE accreditation and SDDOE approval.
6
    “Areas for Improvement are discussed in greater detail below.
       7



       In addition to evaluating units’ compliance with these broad performance standards,
       NCATE/SDDOE review teams also consider units’ performance with respect to specific
       “elements” within each standard. For instance, “Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills and
       Professional Dispositions” includes seven specific elements for evaluation, all of which are
       evaluated separately by the review team. Currently, NCATE’s six unit standards contain a total
       of 28 individual elements. 7 Performance on each element is assessed by the review team and is
       given an “unacceptable,” “acceptable,” or “target” rating. The review team may also raise
       specific Areas for Improvement, which are formal recommendations for improving the unit with
       respect to a particular element. Table 2 summarizes the areas for improvement noted by review
       teams during BOR institutions’ most recent site visits. Over this span, Regental units have tended
       to receive two to eight such recommendations. 8 The specific recommendations for each unit, as
       well as the units’ initial responses to these recommendations, are available in Appendix B.

                                           Table 2
  Most Recent NCATE/SDDOE Unit Review: Elements With Recommended Areas for Improvement
                                                                           BHSU        DSU        NSU        SDSU         USD
NCATE Standard                                                             (2003)     (2009)     (2006)      (2004)      (2004)

1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Disposition
  a.       Content knowledge for teacher candidates
  b.       Content knowledge for other professional school personnel
  c.       Pedagogical content knowledge for teacher candidates                                                X
  d.       Professional/pedagogical knowledge/skills for candidates                                            X
  e.       Professional knowledge and skills for other school personnel
  f.       Dispositions for all candidates                                                          X
  g.       Student learning for teacher candidates

2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
  a. Assessment system
  b. Data collection, analysis, and evaluation                                X                     X                      X
  c. Use of data for program improvement
3. Field Experience and Clinical Practice
  a. Collaboration between unit and school partners                                                            X
  b. Design and implementation of field experiences/clinical practice
  c. Candidates’ development and demonstration of knowledge,                                        X
     skills, and dispositions to help all students learn
4. Diversity
  a.       Design and implementation of curriculum and experiences
  b.       Experiences working with diverse faculty                           X          X          X          X           X
  c.       Experiences working with diverse candidates                        X          X          X          X
  d.       Experiences working with diverse students in P-12 schools                                X                      X
5. Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development
  a. Qualified faculty
  b. Modeling best professional practices in teaching                                               X
  c. Modeling best professional practices in scholarship


       7
         Appendix A provides a current list of NCATE’s 28 standard elements. It should be noted that the list shown in
       Table 2 contains an element (5e) that was recently eliminated by NCATE.
       8
         Unit standards may still be classified as “met” even when areas for improvement are noted by the review team.
                                                                                                                 8

  d.       Modeling best professional practices in service
  e.       Collaboration                                                     X
  f.       Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance                                             X
  g.       Unit facilitation of professional development
6. Unit Governance and Resources
 a.    Unit leadership and authority                                                                                 X
 b.    Unit budget
 c.    Personnel                                                                               X                     X
 d.    Unit facilities
 e.    Unit resources including technology                                                               X

                                                                     Total   4      2          8         6           6


       In tandem with the NCATE/SDDOE unit review process, the South Dakota Department of
       Education also establishes performance criteria as a reporting requirement of the 1998
       amendments to the 1965 federal Higher Education Act (HEA Title II, §208a). Institutions which
       do not meet at least four of the six criteria are classified as either “Low-Performing” or “At Risk
       of Being Low-Performing.” These criteria include: 1) “Content major required for secondary
       program completers”; 2) “The student-faculty supervising ratio does not exceed 18 students to 1
       faculty member”; 3) “The number of weeks of student teaching is not less than 10 weeks”; 4)
       “The institution is not placed on probation by the State, NCATE, or TEAC”; 5) “The institution
       is in compliance with the state standards as found in ARSD 24:16:03 and ARSD 24:16:05:01”;
       and 6) “The institution conducts an annual survey of its graduates during their first year of
       teaching in the field, within the first three years of graduating from the institution, to address
       program improvement.” 9 Over the last six academic years, teacher education units in the
       Regental system have met 100.0% of these criteria (see Table 3).

                                                      Table 3
                Percentage of Criteria Met for Title II Teacher Education Program Performance
           Academic Year          BHSU            DSU            NSU          SDSU         USD
             2004-2005           100.0%          100.0%         100.0%       100.0%       100.0%
             2005-2006           100.0%          100.0%         100.0%       100.0%       100.0%
             2006-2007           100.0%         100.0.%         100.0%       100.0%       100.0%
             2007-2008           100.0%          100.0%         100.0%       100.0%       100.0%
             2008-2009           100.0%          100.0%         100.0%       100.0%       100.0%



       Program Review: SDDOE
       As an initial step in the seven-year NCATE/SDDOE unit review cycle, teacher education units in
       South Dakota are also evaluated by the South Dakota Department of Education at the program




       9
        US Department of Education (2009). Title II State Report 2009 – South Dakota: Low Performing Programs.
       Retrieved from https://title2.ed.gov/Title2DR/LowPerforming.asp
9


level. 10 Six to twelve months prior to the on-site unit review, units are required to submit to the
SDDOE a series of program reports that describe the performance of each teacher education
program in meeting the area-specific professional standards laid out in ARSD 24:53. Program
reviews are conducted by state program review teams, which comprise a range of P-20
practitioners and are responsible for evaluating the success of each program in meeting all
relevant program standards. The results of the program review are used as evidence in the
subsequent NCATE/SDDOE unit review process.

Reviews are conducted by SDDOE using program-specific national content standards, also
known as National Specialty Accreditation standards. The number of standards varies by
program area. The list below summarizes the results of the most recent program review for each
Regental institution:

     o Black Hills State University
           During its most recent program review, 95.6% of BHSU standards were Met with
             Strength or Met. Eight standards included in either Birth Through Age 8 Early
             Childhood, 7-12 Science Education, 7-12 Technology Education/Industrial, K-8
             Elementary Education/Special, K-12 Special Education, and K-12 World
             Language Education standards were classified as Met with Weakness (3.3%) or
             Not Met (1.1%). See Table 5 for additional details.
     o Dakota State University
           In 2009, 97.4% of DSU’s program standards were Met. One standard in the K-8
             Elementary Education/Special Education program and one standard in the K-12
             Computer Education program were Not Met. All of DSU’s teacher education
             programs were approved by SDDOE. See Table 4 for additional details.
     o Northern State University
           NSU had 94.8% of its program standards receive a Met with Strength or Met
             classification. NSU’s K-8 Elementary Education, 7-12 Science Education/
             Chemistry, P-8 and/or 7-12 School Principal, K-12 World Language Education,
             and P-12 School Counselor programs received one or more Met with Weakness
             classifications. See Table 5 for additional details.
     o South Dakota State University
           100.0% of SDSU’s program standards were Met with Strength or Met in the
             school’s most recent review. See Table 5 for additional details.
     o University of South Dakota
           100.0% of USD’s program standards were Met with Strength or Met in the
             school’s most recent review. See Table 5 for additional details.


The most recent Regental program review occurred at Dakota State University in 2009. This
review was conducted under the state’s new rubric system, whereby the evaluation method for
program standards includes only two possible outcomes: Met or Not Met. Table 4 provides the
results of DSU’s 2009 program review using this reporting structure, and future editions of this

10
 SDCL 13-42-3 authorizes the South Dakota Board of Education to develop the requirements that programs must
meet in order to gain approval. These requirements are enumerated in ARSD 24:53 Teacher Preparation Program
Approval. See SDDOE’s Unit and Program Approval Review Handbook.
                                                                                                                 10


report will transfer additional institutions into this table as subsequent results become available.
Prior to 2009, SDDOE reviewers appraised program standards by assigning one of four
classifications: Met with Strength, Met, Met with Weakness, or Not Met. Table 5 gives detailed
program review outcomes for those units whose most recent program review was conducted
under this rubric. Appendix C provides reviewer comments for program standards flagged as
Met with Weakness or Not Met.

                                      Table 4
       Most Recent SDDOE Program Review: Summary of Standards (Updated Rubric)
                                                            # of Standards          Met              Not Met
Dakota State University (2009)
 K-8 Elementary Education                                         5               5                     0
 K-8 Elementary Education/Special                                15               14                    1
  7-12 Language Arts Education                                    4               4                     0
 7-12 Mathematics Education                                      14               14                    0
 7-12 Science Education/Biology                                   9               9                     0
 7-12 Business Education                                         10               10                    0
 7-12 Computer Education (Ed. Technology)                         9               8                     1
 K-12 Physical Education                                         10               10                    0
 Total Percent                                                    -             97.4%                 2.6%




                                      Table 5
          Most Recent SDDOE Program Review: Summary of Standards (Old Rubric)
                                                   # of         Met with                  Met with      Not Met
                                                Standards       Strength      Met         Weakness
Black Hills State University
  Birth Through Age 8 Early Childhood              19              0           18            1             0
  K-8 Elementary Education                         13              1           12            0             0
  5-8 Middle Level Education                       12              0           12            0             0
  7-12 Secondary Education                         8               0           8             0             0
  7-12 Language Arts Education                     30              1           29            0             0
  7-12 Mathematics Education                       3               1           2             0             0
  7-12 Science Education                           4               0           3             0             1
  7-12 Social Science Education                    2               0           2             0             0
  7-12 Business Education                          7               0           7             0             0
  7-12 Technology Education/Industrial             9               0           7             1             1
  K-12 Education Program                           8               0           8             0             0
  K-12 Art Education                               4               2           2             0             0
  K-12 Music Education                             15              2           13            0             0
  K-12 Physical Education                          7               4           3             0             0
  K-12 Special Education                           19              3           14            2             0
  K-12 World Language Education                    12              1           12            2             0
  Preschool-grade 12 Curriculum Director           6               0           6             0             0
                                Total Percent                    8.3%        87.3%         3.3%          1.1%
Northern State University
  K-8 Elementary Education                         13              1          10             2               0
  7-12 Secondary Education                         9               0          8              0               0
  7-12 Language Arts/English                       9               3          6              0               0
  7-12 Language Arts/Speech/Debate                 5               0          5              0               0
  7-12 Mathematics Education                       3               2          1              0               0
11


                                          Table 5 Continued
                                    SDDOE Program Review Summary
                                                    # of     Met with           Met with    Not
                                                 Standards   Strength    Met    Weakness   Met
  7-12 Science Education/Biology                     2           0        2        0         0
  7-12 Science Education/Chemistry                   5           0        3        2         0
  7-12 Social Science Education                      7           1        6        0         0
  7-12 Science Education/History                     1           1        0        0         0
  7-12 Business Education                            7           2        5        0         0
  K-12 Education Program                             8           0        8        0         0
  K-12 Art Education                                 4           2        2        0         0
  K-12 Music Education                               15          5        10       0         0
  K-12 Physical Education                            7           4        3        0         0
  K-12 Special Education                             19          0        19       0         0
  K-12 World Language Education                      15          2        12       1         0
  P-8 and/or 7-12 School Principal                   10          1        8        1         0
  Birth-21 Special Education Director                7           0        7        0         0
  P-12 School Counselor                              9           1        6        2         0
                                 Total Percent                16.2%     78.6%    5.2%      0.0%
South Dakota State University
  Birth Through Pre-School Education                18          6        12        0        0
  Birth Through Age 8 Early Childhood               18          0         18       0         0
  7-12 Secondary Education                          8           0         8        0         0
  7-12 Language Arts Education                      23          3         20       0         0
  7-12 Mathematics Education                        4           0         4        0         0
  7-12 Science Education                            11          0         11       0         0
  7-12 Social Science Education                     6           1         5        0         0
  7-12 Vocational Technical Education               5           2         3        0         0
  7-12 Agricultural Education                       16          3         13       0         0
  7-12 Family Consumer Science                      8           3         5        0         0
  K-12 Education Program                            8           0         8        0         0
  K-12 Art Education                                4           0         4        0         0
  K-12 Music Education                              15          12        3        0         0
  K-12 Physical Education                           7           1         6        0         0
  K-12 World Language Education                     4           3         1        0         0
  P-8 and/or 7-12 School Principal                  4           2         2        0         0
  Preschool-grade 12 Curriculum Director            3           0         3        0         0
  P-12 Counselor                                    9           2         7        0         0
                                Total Percent                 22.2%     77.8%    0.0%      0.0%

University of South Dakota
 K-8 Elementary Education                           13          6        7         0        0
 7-12 Secondary Education                           6           0        6         0        0
 7-12 Language Arts Education                       19          7        12        0        0
 7-12 Mathematics Education                         3           1        2         0        0
 7-12 Science Education                             15          0        15        0        0
 7-12 Social Science Education                      2           0        2         0        0
 K-12 Education Program                             3           0        3         0        0
 K-12 Art Education                                 4           0        4         0        0
 K-12 Music Education                               15          2        13        0        0
 K-12 Physical Education                            7           1        6         0        0
 K-12 Special Education                             19          0        19        0        0
 K-12 World Language Education                      15          3        12        0        0
 K-12 Reading Specialist                            9           8        1         0        0
 P-8 and/or 7-12 School Principal                   10          1        9         0        0
                                                                                           12


                                      Table 5 Continued
                                SDDOE Program Review Summary
                                                  # of     Met with           Met with    Not
                                               Standards   Strength    Met    Weakness   Met
P-12 Career School Superintendent                  6           6        0        0         0
Birth-21 Special Education Director                10          0        10       0         0
Preschool-grade 12 Curriculum Director             6           4        2        0         0
P-12 Counselor                                     9           6        3        0         0
Birth-21 School Psychologist                       7           7        0        0         0
Birth-21 Speech/Language Pathologist               10          2        8        0         0
Master’s Plus: Certification Only                  1           0        1        0         0
                               Total Percent                28.6%     71.4%    0.0%      0.0%
13




Teacher Education Candidates: Programs and Completions
This section describes the state’s population of teacher education candidates in 2009-2010.
Teacher education candidates include those students who have been formally admitted to a
teacher education program after meeting all institutional requirements. At the undergraduate
level, candidacy usually is not awarded until a number of coursework prerequisites have been
satisfied. Consequently, the annual candidate pool is populated mostly by upperclassmen.

Teacher education programs are structured under several different curricular frameworks (i.e.,
degree-major combinations) across the Regental system. For example, a candidate seeking to
teach high school mathematics may – dependent on the campus he or she attends – major in
mathematics, education, mathematics education, or some combination of multiple majors.
Further, this same student may receive a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Science degree,
or a Bachelor of Science in Education degree. In other cases, the student may already hold a
degree and is returning to a Regental institution to complete a post-baccalaureate teacher
certification program. In general, most teacher education candidates fall under one of the
following degree-major approaches 11:

     Discipline Major with B.A. or B.S. Degree: In this approach, teacher education candidates
        are viewed as majors in a chosen substantive discipline. Students complete a substantive
        major (e.g., mathematics, biology) vis-à-vis the requirements of a B.A. or B.S. degree.
        Beyond the coursework associated with a substantive major, students also complete a
        limited sequence of courses required for state teaching certification. This approach is
        used primarily at SDSU for secondary education preparation programs.

     Discipline Major with B.S.Ed. Degree: The second approach also involves the full
        completion of an undergraduate substantive major (e.g., mathematics, biology).
        However, rather than completing the requirements for a B.A. or B.S. degree, students
        complete the requirements for a teaching baccalaureate degree, the Bachelor of Science
        in Education. This approach is used commonly at BHSU, DSU, and NSU, particularly in
        secondary education tracks. A related approach involves the completion of a distinct
        major that combines courses from a substantive discipline with teacher preparation
        courses. Such majors (e.g., Mathematics Education, Biology Education) are usually
        paired with a B.S.Ed. degree. This approach is used by USD for secondary teacher
        education programs and by all institutions for elementary education programs.

     Alternative Certification: This academic certificate program provides an option for those
          who have already completed a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a teachable area from
          an accredited institution. These programs are designed for professional practitioners
          who wish to become teachers but lack instruction in the area of pedagogy.



11
  The following approaches generally do not apply to teacher education candidates in the field of music. These
students typically complete the requirements for a discipline-specific degree, such as the Bachelor of Fine Arts,
Bachelor of Music, or Bachelor of Music Education.
                                                                                                               14


The following tables provide unduplicated candidate counts for the 2009-2010 academic year for
each certification area. 12 Candidates are grouped across degree types; for example, frequency
counts include all students in B.A., B.S., B.S.Ed., and all other degree programs. As seen in
Table 6, the five largest degree certification areas in 2009-2010 were elementary education
(n=477 candidates), special education (n=152), history (n=144), physical education (n=119), and
music (n=114). This “top five” subset is similar to that recorded for the 2008-2009 academic
year; elementary education has been unchallenged as the dominant program area over the last
five years.

                                           Table 6
          Undergraduate Candidates by Program Area and Institution: Largest Programs*
     Program Area(s)                             BHSU DSU NSU SDSU USD Sum
     Elementary Education                                      177        59      93            148     477
     Special Education                                          62                42            48      152
     History; History Education                                 16                14    87      27      144
     Physical Education; Health, Phys. Ed. & Rec.               19        15       8    45      32      119
                              1
     Music, Music Education                                      6                39    46      23      114
     Mathematics; Mathematics Education                         12        4       13    56      17      102
     English; English Education                                  6        5        6    31      25      73
                                               2
     Elementary Education/Special Education                     18        51                            69
                                  3
     Agriculture; Ag. Education                                                         63              63
     Art, Art Education; Art Education Comp.                    11                 3    23       8      45
     Biology; Biology Education                                  6        2        3    28       4      43
     Spanish; Spanish Education                                  4                 2    18       6      30
     Social Science; Comp. Social Science; Psychology            7                10    19              36
     Family & Consumer Science Education                                                11              11
     Business Education                                          4        4        2                    10
     Chemistry; Chem. Education; Chem. Teaching                  1                      7        2      10
     Early Childhood Education                                                          9                9
     Communication Studies & Theatre                                                    8                8
     * This table contains only the largest programs (by total n), not all programs.
     1
         Includes Vocal, Instrumental Performance; Comp. Vocal; Comp. Inst.
     2
         Also includes Comp. Early Child/Spec. Ed; Elem. Ed. & Spec. Learn./ Behav. Prob.
     3
         Also includes Animal Science, Ag. Journalism; Ag. Engineering; and Ag. Education, Comm., & Ldr.




12
  Students are unduplicated by term, but not by program area; therefore, some students may appear under multiple
programs or institutions.
15


Additionally, a total of 56 candidates were enrolled in undergraduate alternative certification
programs during the 2009-2010 academic year, a plurality of which were enrolled at BHSU
(n=30) through the Project SELECT and Project SECOND programs. Project SELECT is an
accelerated program which allows a cohort of up to 25 individuals to work with current
educators over the course of a school year; Project SECOND is an online-only program that
gives place-bound individuals a route to teacher certification. Both programs lead to eligibility
for secondary teacher certification with highly qualified teacher status within one calendar year.
Table 7 displays the number of candidates enrolled in BHSU’s Project SELECT and Project
SECOND programs during the last four academic years. These programs help to fill a number of
high-need areas for the state.

                                             Table 7
          Candidates Involved in BHSU's Project SELECT and Project SECOND Programs
     Content Area           2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total
     English                   6          2         5         2         2        5       22
     Biology                   1          2         4         4         2        3       16
     Social Science            1          2         4         0         1        3       11
     Business                  1          3         1         1         1        2        9
     Mathematics               1          0         1         1         1        4        8
     History                   0          0         1         1         2        3        7
     Art/Music                 1          0         2         1         0        2        6
     Physical Education        1          0         0         1         2        2        6
     Science/Physical          1          1         1         2         0        0        5
     Physics/Chemistry         0          0         2         0         0        2        4
     Technology                1          1         0         0         0        0        2
     Middle School             0          0         0         0         2        0        2
     Speech/Debate/Theatre     0          0         0         0         0        2        2
     Family Consumer Sc.       0          0         0         0         0        2        2
     Spanish                   0          0         0         0         1        0        1
                      Total    14        11        21        13        14       30       103


At the graduate level, teacher education candidates were enrolled in Master of Science (M.S.),
Master of Arts (M.A.), Master of Science in Education (M.S.Ed.), Master of Education (M.Ed.),
Specialist in Education (Ed.S.), Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
degree programs. As seen in Table 8, USD (n=491) reported the largest number of candidates,
followed by NSU (n=166), BHSU (n=143), DSU (n=45), and SDSU (n=15). The five most-
populated program areas among graduate-level candidates were educational administration
(n=193), curriculum and instruction (n=189), counseling and psychology in education (n=103),
teaching and learning (n=74), and counseling (n=48).           Educational administration and
curriculum and instruction have occupied the top two positions in each of the last five years. A
total of five candidates were enrolled in graduate-level alternative certification programs in
2009-2010, all at NSU.
                                                                                                              16


                                            Table 8
                       Graduate Candidates by Program Area and Institution
         Program Area(s)                        BHSU DSU NSU SDSU USD Sum
         Educational Admin. (EdD, MA, ME, Spec)                                     1       192     193
         Curr. and Instr. (EdD, ME, MS, Spec)            143                        2       44      189
         Counseling & Psych. in Ed. (PhD, MA, Spec)                                         103     103
         Teaching and Learning (MS)                                        74                       74
         Counseling (MS)                                                   48                       48
         Educational Technology (MS)                               45                               45
         Elementary Education (MA)                                                          39      39
         Special Education (MA)                                                             38      38
         Leadership and Administration (MS)                                33                       33
         Technology for Ed & Training (MS)                                                  31      31
         Health, Phys. Education & Rec. (MA, MS)                                    3       21      24
         Secondary Education (MA)                                                           23      23
         E-Learning Tech. & Admin (MS)                                     11                       11
         Counseling & Human Resource Dev. (MS)                                      6                6
         Communication Sty & Journalism (MS)                                        1                1
         English (MA)                                                               1                1
         Sociology (PhD)                                                            1                1


Annual program completion data are reported by individual campuses to the South Dakota
Department of Education as per federal HEA Title II requirements. Data are used by SDDOE to
track candidates for licensure. During the 2008-2009 academic year, a total of 482 teacher
education candidates completed their programs at one of the state’s five Regental institutions
(see Table 9). 13 This figure represents a 22.6% increase from 2007-2008, and is the highest
figure reported since 2004-2005.
                                                Table 9
                        Teacher Education Program Completers – Five-Year Trend1
                                    BHSU DSU NSU SDSU USD Total
                        2004-2005    128      58    116    119     109     530
                        2005-2006    116      74     91    106      84     471
                        2006-2007    114      61     85     98      73     431
                        2007-2008     99      40     60     86     108     393
                        2008-2009    135      44     68    130     105     482
                             Total   592     277    420    539     479 2,307
                        1
                            Data provided by SDDOE.




13
  SDDOE Title II unit reviews are conducted using lagged data. Data for 2009-2010 were not available at the time
of this report.
17




Teacher Education Candidates: Academic Preparation and Performance

ARSD 24:15:02:08 State Certification Exam Requirements and ARSD 24:53:4:02 State Certification
Exams for Teachers establish the examination requirements for certification applicants. As one
prerequisite for certification, applicants in South Dakota must submit verification of passing scores
on the state certification exams for their certification area(s). Candidates applying for initial
certification after July 1, 2005, are required to meet or exceed qualifying scores on the appropriate 1)
Praxis II Subject Assessment(s) and 2) Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) Test(s)
that most accurately match their level of preparation and anticipated area(s) of instruction.14
Regarding Praxis II test selection, ARSD 24:15:02:08 states that “An applicant new to the profession
must submit verification of passing scores on the state certification exams for each content/area
authorization [Subject Assessment(s)] and for the pedagogy exam [PLT Test(s)] that most closely
matches the applicant’s preparation,” (bracketed text added). All candidates are required to schedule
and pass Praxis II exams prior to the beginning of the student teaching phase. Thus, students failing
to earn qualifying scores on their respective exams are not allowed to take part in student teaching
experiences.

Praxis II outcomes for 2009-2010 teacher education candidates are illustrated below. 15 In Figure 1,
institutional pass rates (i.e., the percentage of students meeting or exceeding SDDOE-established cut
scores) are shown for all Praxis II test takers. It can be seen here that Praxis II pass rates ranged from
100.0% (BHSU) to 96.0% (NSU); the system-wide cumulative pass rate was 98.4%. In general, pass
rates have remained relatively steady over the last five years; longitudinal figures are provided in
Appendix D (Figures D1 and D2).
                                                  Figure 1
                  Praxis II Subject and PLT Knowledge Test Pass Rates by Institution

                      100.0%       100.0%       97.8%                    99.5%       99.7%
                                                            96.0%
                       95.0%
                       90.0%
                       85.0%
                       80.0%
                       75.0%
                                   BHSU         DSU          NSU         SDSU         USD


14
   Praxis II exams are administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). ETS offers more than 120 different
Subject Assessments – which measure subject-specific teaching skills and knowledge – across a range of content
areas (e.g., biology, geography, theatre). Approximately 40 of these exams are admissible to SDDOE. Principles of
Learning and Teaching (PLT) Tests measure general pedagogical knowledge within four different grade levels:
Early childhood, K-6, 5-9, and 7-12.
15
   The dataset underlying these figures includes all Praxis test scores generated by teacher education candidates
enrolled during the 2009-2010 academic year, including those test scores generated before, during, and after the
2009-2010 academic year. It is important to note that this dataset includes first-time test takers, and that students
who are unsuccessful on an initial Praxis examination attempt often will pass on a subsequent attempt. Further,
many teacher education candidates will – for a variety of reasons – attempt Praxis exams outside their major content
areas. Overall then, the frequencies presented here (high as they may be) are sure to understate the rates of terminal
success experienced by Regental candidates taking Praxis exams in their primary preparation areas.
                                                                                                        18

Thirty four different Praxis II examinations were administered to Regental students during the 2009-
2010 academic year, an assessment effort that involved 607 different test takers and produced 1,043
individual test scores. Perfect pass rates were obtained by candidates in 22 (64.7%) of these
assessments (see Table 10).

                                                   Table 10
                     Regental Pass rates for Praxis II Subject Assessments and PLT Tests
        Praxis II Test                               Takers (n)   Passed (n)   Failed (n)   Pass Rate
        0014: Elementary Education                       246          246            -        100.0%
        0021: Early Childhood Education                   45           44           1          97.8%
        0041: English Language, Lit., & Comp.             25           23           2          92.0%
        0049: Middle School English/Language Arts          4            4            -        100.0%
        0050: Technology Education                         1            1            -        100.0%
        0061: Mathematics                                 25           24           1          96.0%
        0069: Middle School Mathematics                   15           15            -        100.0%
        0081: Social Studies                               2            2            -        100.0%
        0089: Middle School Social Studies                 6            3           3          50.0%
        0091: Physical Education                          33           33            -        100.0%
        0100: Business Education                           4            3           1          75.0%
        0113: Music                                       48           46           2          95.8%
        0121: Family & Consumer Sciences                   4            4            -        100.0%
        0133: Art                                         14           13           1          92.9%
        0181: German                                       1            1            -        100.0%
        0191: Spanish                                      5            5            -        100.0%
        0235: Biology                                     15           13           2          86.7%
        0245: Chemistry                                    3            3            -        100.0%
        0265: Physics                                      1            1            -        100.0%
        0353: Education of the Exceptional Child          72           71           1          98.6%
        0390: Psychology                                   1            1            -        100.0%
        0439: Middle School Science                        7            4           3          57.1%
        0481: Physical Science                             1            1            -        100.0%
        0521: PLT: Early Childhood                        29           29            -        100.0%
        0522: PLT: K-6                                   177          177            -        100.0%
        0524: PLT: 7-12                                  191          188           3          98.4%
        0571: Earth and Space Science                      2            2            -        100.0%
        0690: Special Education - Preschool/Early          1            1            -        100.0%
        0700: Agriculture                                  8            8            -        100.0%
        0910: Economics                                    2            2            -        100.0%
        0920: Geography                                    6            6            -        100.0%
        0930: Government/Political Science                 2            2            -        100.0%
        0941: World and US History                        42           41           1          97.6%
        0950: Sociology                                    5            5            -        100.0%
                                               Total   1,043        1,022          21          98.0%


The South Dakota Department of Education establishes the qualifying scores for all Praxis II
tests administered to students in South Dakota. Qualifying scores were modified most recently
in September of 2007. Current qualifying scores for each test are shown in Table 11, as well as
the mean scores obtained by program candidates during the last academic year.
19


                                                 Table 11
           SDDOE Cut Scores and Candidate Mean Scores for Praxis II Subject Assessments and PLT Tests
            Praxis II Test                               Takers (n)   Cut Score     Mean         SD
            0014: Elementary Education                      246          140        165.7       12.2
            0021: Early Childhood Education                  45          166        180.8        8.7
            0041: English Language, Lit., & Comp.            25          154        171.4       12.8
            0049: Middle School English/Language Arts         4          150        174.0        9.4
            0050: Technology Education                        1          560        600.0        n/a
            0061: Mathematics                                25          124        157.9       16.1
            0069: Middle School Mathematics                  15          140        167.1       12.6
            0081: Social Studies                              2          146        165.5        9.2
            0089: Middle School Social Studies                6          145        153.5       23.2
            0091: Physical Education                         33          140        154.8        6.2
            0100: Business Education                          4          560        524.0      232.1
            0113: Music                                      48          150        168.4       11.0
            0121: Family & Consumer Sciences                  4          150        167.8       12.1
            0133: Art                                        14          143        164.4       12.8
            0181: German                                      1          143        156.0        n/a
            0191: Spanish                                     5          135        163.8       22.1
            0235: Biology                                    15          147        159.8       12.4
            0245: Chemistry                                   3          135        169.0       10.5
            0265: Physics                                     1          130        153.0        n/a
            0353: Education of the Exceptional Child         72          150        170.3       11.7
            0390: Psychology                                  1          520        760.0        n/a
            0439: Middle School Science                       7          138        140.0       13.1
            0481: Physical Science                            1          143        184.0        n/a
            0521: PLT: Early Childhood                       29          160        185.5       10.2
            0522: PLT: K-6                                  177          153        176.4        8.0
            0524: PLT: 7-12                                 191          153        171.5        9.6
            0571: Earth and Space Science                     2          150        158.0       11.3
            0690: Special Education - Preschool/Early         1          550        610.0        n/a
            0700: Agriculture                                 8          480        602.5       46.8
            0910: Economics                                   2          500        655.0       21.2
            0920: Geography                                   6          520        696.7       89.8
            0930: Government/Political Science                2          540        750.0       56.6
            0941: World and US History                       42          135        159.5       14.1
            0950: Sociology                                   5          540        674.0       55.5


All degree-seeking Regental students must fulfill the proficiency examination requirement as
specified by BOR Policy 2:28. The Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), which
is designed to test foundational college skills at or near the end of the first two years of college,
serves as SDBOR’s central measure of academic proficiency. The CAAP contains four subtests:
writing skills, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning.

CAAP scores offer a means by which to compare the academic performance of teacher education
candidates to that of the general student population. In the following tables, 2009-2010 CAAP scores
from teacher education candidates are compared with those from all other test takers. 16 Table 12
16
     Because SDSMT operates no school of education, no student data from SDSMT is included in this analysis.
                                                                                                              20

indicates that – though between-groups score differences tended to be small in magnitude – teacher
education candidates outperformed the general student population on all four CAAP subtests with
respect to basic pass rates. Teacher education candidates also more frequently scored at or above the
national mean in mathematics, reading, and writing. 17 However, the general student population
tended to score at or above the national 99th percentile more often than did teacher education
candidates (as indicated by scores on the mathematics, reading, and science reasoning subtests).

                                        Table 12
  Teacher Education Candidate and General Student Population Performance on CAAP Exam
                                                            At or Above     At or Above
                                            Pass Rate      National Mean 99th Percentile
 Mathematics
   Teacher Education Candidates              99.5%             63.3%           1.5%
   General Student Population                98.6%             59.7%           2.1%
 Reading
   Teacher Education Candidates                       97.5%                  60.8%                4.0%
   General Student Population                         96.1%                  60.2%                5.2%
 Science Reasoning
    Teacher Education Candidates                      99.5%                  61.8%                1.0%
    General Student Population                        99.4%                  67.7%                4.8%
 Writing
   Teacher Education Candidates                       97.0%                  65.8%                3.0%
   General Student Population                         93.0%                  66.2%                2.1%

Proficiency exam data from 2009-2010 were further examined to determine how teacher education
candidates’ mean scores compared with those from the general student population. Figure 2
indicates that teacher education candidates narrowly outscored all other students on three of the four
CAAP subtests (mathematics, reading, and writing) in 2009-2010. Overall, the key observation that
emerges from this comparison of CAAP scores is that teacher education candidates’ scores tend to
closely approximate – and sometimes marginally outpace – those of the general student population.
                                           Figure 2
          Candidate Performance on CAAP Subtests Compared to General Student Population
                                      63.9     63.8             65.4     65.0
     65                                                                                    62.5     63.1
             59.6     59.3
     60
     55
             Mathematics                Reading                    Writing            Science Reasoning

                         Teacher Education Candidates         General Student Population




17
 Longitudinal CAAP pass rates – which have remained relatively unchanged since 2005-2006 – are presented in
Appendix D, Table D1.
21

Using the same student cohort, ACT subject scores and composite scores were analyzed to explore
how teacher education candidates compared with the general student population at each of the five
Regental institutions. Findings from the analysis indicate that teacher education candidates tended to
score slightly higher than the general population on the English and mathematics subtests, whereas
students in the general population tended to obtain higher scores on the science reasoning subtest.
Overall, system-wide average composite scores were markedly similar between these groups in
2009-2010, as has tended to be the case over the most recent five-year period (see Appendix D, Table
D2).

                                             Table 13
             Mean ACT Scores for Candidates and General Student Population by Institution
                                                 BHSU DSU NSU SDSU USD                           System
 English
   Teacher Education Candidates                       20.2     21.0    21.8     24.1     22.0     22.6
   General Student Population                         21.7     20.9    21.7     22.8     22.8     22.5
 Mathematics
   Teacher Education Candidates                       20.8     21.1    22.9     24.0     22.9     22.9
   General Student Population                         21.4     21.6    22.0     23.5     22.8     22.8
 Science Reasoning
    Teacher Education Candidates                      21.2     22.1    21.7     23.7     22.0     22.6
    General Student Population                        22.2     22.1    22.3     23.5     23.0     23.1
 Reading
   Teacher Education Candidates                       21.5     21.2    22.8     24.5     23.7     23.4
   General Student Population                         23.0     21.9    22.8     23.7     23.5     23.4
 Composite
   Teacher Education Candidates                       21.1     21.5    22.4     24.3     22.9     23.0
   General Student Population                         22.2     21.8    22.4     23.6     23.1     23.1
                                                                                                              22




Appendix A: Current NCATE Unit Standards 18


Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and
professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students
learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
        a) Content knowledge for teacher candidates
        b) Pedagogical content knowledge for teacher candidates
        c) Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher candidates
        d) Student learning for teacher candidates
        e) Knowledge and skills for other school professionals
        f) Student learning for other school professionals
        g) Professional dispositions for all candidates

Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications,
candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the
performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs.
       a) Assessment system
       b) Data collection, analysis, and evaluation
       c) Use of data for program improvement

Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical
practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
        a) Collaboration between unit and school partners
        b) Design, implementation, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice
        c) Candidates’ development and demonstration of knowledge, skills, and professional
           dispositions to help all students learn




18
  National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). Unit standards in effect: 2008. Retrieved from
http://ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/tabid/476/Default.aspx
23


Standard 4: Diversity

The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates
to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help
all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies
related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse
populations, including higher education and P–12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P–
12 schools.
        a) Design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and experiences
        b) Experiences working with diverse faculty
        c) Experiences working with diverse candidates
        d) Experiences working with diverse students in P-12 schools

Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching,
including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance.
They also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically
evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.
       a) Qualified faculty
       b) Modeling best professional practices in teaching
       c) Modeling best professional practices in scholarship
       d) Modeling best professional practices in service
       e) Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance
       f) Unit facilitation of professional development

Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources

The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including
information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state,
and institutional standards.
        a) Unit leadership and authority
       b) Unit budget
       c) Personnel
       d) Unit facilities
       e) Unit resources including technology
                                                                                               24


Appendix B: NCATE Areas for Improvement and Unit Responses

A. Black Hills State University: Areas for Improvement recommended in 4 of 29 NCATE
                                standard elements.

   Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
      Areas for Improvement – At the Advanced preparation level the unit does not
         systematically aggregate and analyze data for program improvement.
      Unit Response – The South Dakota Board of Regents asked each Teacher Education
         program to review and revise assessment plans for alignment with national standards
         in content areas (SPAS). This work impacted 23 teacher education programs at
         BHSU and was a major area of emphasis in the 2005-2006 academic year. The work
         built upon the system-wide STEP program completed in 2004-2005 to align syllabi
         and learning outcomes with state content standards. At the advanced preparation
         level, this foundational work in designing assessment plans to meet the three distinct
         areas of specialization within the one MSCI degree (reading, technology,
         mathematics) was a critical first step prior to collecting data. The plan is now in place
         and the first data analysis is due in January 2007.

   Standard 4: Diversity
      Areas for Improvement – Candidates have limited opportunities to interact with faculty
         from culturally and racially diverse groups. Candidates have limited opportunities to
         interact with peers from culturally and racially diverse groups.
      Unit Response – The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and
         experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and
         dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working
         with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse
         students in P-12 schools.

   Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Evaluation
      Areas for Improvement – Limited collaboration between education faculty and arts and
         sciences faculty leads to inconsistent advisement of candidates.
      Unit Response – The College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Education have
         collaboratively developed an Advising Handbook for Education Students which
         includes advising information for all BSE majors. In addition, each secondary
         education major has been assigned two advisors, one for content expertise and one for
         pedagogy and licensing expertise. The faculty are increasing collaborative work in all
         areas including assessment, curriculum changes, and joint work on advisory boards
         and committees.


B. Dakota State University: Areas for Improvement recommended in 2 of 29 NCATE standard
                             elements.

   Standard 4: Diversity
      Areas for Improvement – As a result of unit and university and school-based faculty
         demographics, candidate opportunities for interaction with diverse faculty are limited.
25


           Although good faith efforts are being made to recruit diverse candidates, the fact that
           diverse races/ethnicities are underrepresented in the unit in relation to the university
           as a whole provided an area for improvement.
        Unit Response – As the BOE Final Report indicates in Standard 4 Diversity, we have
           made good faith efforts to recruit both diverse faculty (4b) and candidates (4c) but
           understand there is still a need to continue our efforts in both of these areas.
           Therefore we will not submit a rejoinder.


C. Northern State University: Areas for Improvement recommended in 8 of 29 NCATE
                             standard elements.

     Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
        Areas for Improvement - Advanced programs do not consistently assess candidate
           dispositions.
        Unit Response - None of the advanced programs leads to initial certification. All
           students in advanced programs in education are already certified teachers. Therefore,
           the assessment of dispositions at the advanced level is different from the assessment
           of dispositions for candidates at the initial certification level. Internship supervisors
           monitor professional behaviors and dispositions during the internship, but that
           information has not been collected to date. Recognizing that a more specific
           evaluation of dispositions earlier in the program would provide better information on
           graduate student performance, the Counselor Education faculty initiated a pilot
           assessment project this past year for dispositions with first and second year graduate
           students using a rubric adapted from the dispositions rubric for the initial certification
           candidates.

     Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
        Areas for Improvement - At the initial level, data showing candidate impact on student
           learning is not collected, recorded, aggregated and analyzed. The advanced level
           assessment system does not include multiple assessments consistent with the
           conceptual framework and national standards. Dispositions are not consistently
           assessed. Graduate follow-up data is not available. Performance evaluations are not
           completed except at the end of the program.
        Unit Response - Data on candidate impact on student learning is collected, recorded,
           aggregated, and analyzed by the unit. It shows that the average improvement in
           reading skills of all students tutored by our teacher education candidates is one grade
           level or more and also compares student learning for elementary and secondary
           teacher education candidates as well as face-to-face and distance tutoring. This data
           is the result of the pre- and post-assessment completed by each candidate and
           collected through the Reading Clinic. Since the data from the student teaching
           portfolio evaluation is collected through a standard evaluation rubric, it can be
           aggregated. The data from the past three semesters is provided in Appendix D as an
           example, however, the unit still considers the data from the Reading Clinic to meet
           the requirements of NCATE for candidate proof of impact on student learning. The
           unit did not understand that it is required to aggregate and report all collected data
           even when that data is already replicated by another assessment process. It is true
                                                                                             26


       that no employer survey data on advanced candidates is collected. The School of
       Education surveys employers of graduates in the initial certification programs. This
       survey data was provided to the visiting team and is also required by the South
       Dakota Department of Education as part of the annual Title II report on teacher
       certification. Those graduating from advanced programs do complete an exit survey
       that is gathered and used by faculty to assess graduate program features. There is no
       initial teacher certification program at the advanced level so employer surveys have
       not been a part of the graduate program assessment.

Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
   Areas for Improvement - The unit has no consistent method for candidate reflection in
      field, clinical, and internship experiences. The unit does not ensure that all candidates
      have field experiences with diverse populations.
   Unit Response - Initial and advanced candidates have ample opportunity to reflect on
      field, clinic and internship experiences. Reflection and goal setting are specific
      requirements of each field experience and the student teaching experience as well as
      required in entries for the electronic portfolio in the initial certification programs.
      The reflection and goal setting are part of the required paper that each student writes
      and submits for each field experience, that is the sophomore field experience and
      junior field experience(s). At the advanced level, all graduate students are evaluated
      on the final portfolio evaluation, while both initial and advanced candidates are
      required to provide evidence of reflection on their field, clinic, and internship
      experiences and this evidence is consistently collected and monitored by the unit.
      The diversity of placement settings is more a matter of definition than fact. If the
      definition of diversity is largely racial diversity, as was apparent from our
      conversations with the visiting team, then placements will not demonstrate a large
      degree of racial diversity. If the definition of diversity is broader than just racial
      diversity, then candidates at initial and advanced levels do experience considerable
      diversity including gender, socioeconomic class, family type, religious background,
      English Language Learners, and special needs.

Standard 4: Diversity
   Areas for Improvement - Candidates have limited opportunities to interact with faculty
      members and from diverse backgrounds, and limited opportunities to interact with
      diverse learners. The unit does not ensure that all candidates have field experiences
      with diverse populations and limited diversity among its candidate population.
   Unit Response - In the summer of 2003, the administration of Northern State University
      funded the Institute for Rural Education and Community Development under the
      auspices of the School of Education. In the spring of 2004, the School of Education
      received permission to use Institute funding for a Visiting Professor of Diversity and
      initiated a search for the first visiting professor. The composition of the faculty in the
      professional unit provides for greater ethnic diversity than in the state of South
      Dakota and than in the university as a whole. While the state minority population is
      about 11% and the university faculty minority population is currently 13%, the
      faculty composition in the School of Education is 19% ethnic minority, certainly a
      significant achievement in view of the rest of the state and higher education
27


            population. Opportunities for interaction with diverse learners have been enhanced
            through the implementation in fall 2002 of a field trip to the Sioux Falls Family
            Immersion Center, and through the course INED 411 South Dakota Indian Studies.
            All candidates in all programs are required to provide accommodations for students
            with special needs and varied learning preferences in the lesson plans they create for
            their electronic portfolio. The electronic portfolio evaluation rubric, created and
            implemented in 2003, specifically addresses teacher accommodation of learner
            differences.

     Standard 5: Faculty Qualification, Performance, and Development
        Areas for Improvement - Faculty instruction does not reflect their knowledge and
           experiences in diversity. The unit does not insure that cooperating teachers have
           sufficient qualifications to fulfill their duties.
        Unit Response - Of the 23 unit faculty, four did not teach any classes this past year. The
           remaining nineteen all provided numerous examples of how diversity is addressed in
           a total of sixty classes. Two faculty responses have been added since this evidence
           was provided to the team when they were on campus in April. Surely the integration
           of diversity by all full-time teaching faculty is evidence that their knowledge and
           experiences in diversity are reflected in their instruction. The guidelines for
           cooperating teachers in the letters sent to administrators do say that the cooperating
           teacher must be highly qualified which in the state of South Dakota does mean
           licensed in the area they teach. Administrators in the P-12 classrooms are very
           particular that the teachers they select to mentor our student teachers meet the criteria
           stated.

     Standard 6: Governance and Resources
        Areas for Improvement - The unit does not have a sufficient number of staff to support
           programs.
        Unit Response - We agree that it is a considerable challenge to manage the operations of
           the unit with the current level of support, especially in light of the fact that new,
           additional requirements for data management and reporting will be implemented by
           the South Dakota Board of Regents and the South Dakota Department of Education
           as well as the ongoing assessment requirements for NCATE.


D. South Dakota State University: Areas for Improvement recommended in 6 of 29 NCATE
                                  standard elements.

     Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Disposition
        Areas for Improvement – At the Initial Teacher Preparation, the unit does not prepare
           candidates in early childhood education to effectively use age-appropriate strategies
           to facilitate learning for first- and second-graders. Candidates in the ECE B-8
           program lack appropriate knowledge and skills in the use of strategies to facilitate
           learning from 1st and 2nd grade students. Mentor teachers and some candidates report
           that some ECE B-8 candidates do not receive formal instruction in the use of age-
           appropriate strategies to facilitate learning for 1st and 2nd grades and find it difficult to
                                                                                             28


      implement age-appropriate strategies in their own teaching. The Program’s methods
      curriculum does not provide activities and experiences that reflect current school
      academic requirements for children.
   Unit Response – The Birth to Age 8 program is accredited by the National Association
      for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). In NAEYC Standards, as approved
      by the NAEYCe Governing Board in July of 2001, and by NCATE, October 2001,
      the summary statement of the Sub-Standard 4b, entitled “Using developmentally
      effective approaches” states, “Candidates know, understand, and use a wide array of
      effective approaches, strategies, and tools to positively influence children’s
      development and learning.” Since we have met the criteria for NAEYC accreditation,
      and since NCATE gave us approval, we consider this standard to have been met. We
      will continue to evaluate this area of our program and make adjustments accordingly.

Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
   Areas for Improvement – Inconsistent application of unit and program placement
      policies results in limited experiences with diverse P-12 students for candidates in
      some program areas. Secondary candidates report that despite policies in place
      requiring diverse placements throughout their programs, they are allowed to complete
      all field experiences at the same site and in one instance with the same teacher.
      Candidates who only experience one placement site throughout their experience have
      limited opportunities to work with diverse students and clinical faculty.
   Unit Response – We no longer allow the Professional Semester III (PS-III) students to
      do their student teaching field-experience in the same school district in which they
      did their earlier Professional Semester II (PS-II) lesson presentation field-experience.
      In addition, we have implemented a “student teachers hosting student teachers”
      component in which one student teacher will take a day to host a student teacher
      assignment to another setting. The visiting or guest student teacher is invited to the
      host’s school and is invited to sit in on the host’s class if they are in the same content
      area or, the host is asked to make arrangements in the guest’s content area for him/her
      to observe another classroom so the guest is exposed to a different teaching style. In
      addition, we have arranged with one of the Schools on the Reservation for a student
      teacher to be housed during their student teaching semester so they can gain
      experience in a diverse culture. We have also entered into an agreement with the
      Aldine Independent School District in Houston, Texas to take our student teachers.
      That school district is 61% Hispanic, 30% African America, and 3% Asian American.
      We anticipate having student teachers in Houston in the fall of 2006.

Standard 4: Diversity
   Areas for Improvement – Candidates have limited opportunities to work with diverse
      faculty. Candidates have limited opportunities to work with peers from diverse
      backgrounds. Unit faculty are not ethnically diverse which limits candidate exposure
      to varied ideas and experiences. Because of this limited diversity, candidates are not
      able to see diverse professionals in the role of mentors and models.
   Unit Response – In addition to the response under Standard 3, for the last two semesters,
      our PS-II candidates have been going to Axtell Park Middle School in Sioux Falls,
      SD which is one of the most diverse schools in the State of South Dakota, to
      “shadow” Middle School students for a day, and to meet with a teacher and the
29


            Principal to discuss the model used by that school to develop respect for persons of
            other cultures.

     Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
        Areas for Improvement – At the Initial Teacher Preparation, faculty and candidates do
           not have access to sufficient and current library and curricular resources. The
           curriculum collection materials are dated and quite limited in scope. Texts and trade
           publications that support 7-12 curriculum are inadequate due to age or missing
           altogether. Manipulatives and other teaching tools are not representative of the depth
           and breadth of curricular materials available to assist K-12 student learning. Further
           investigation shows no budget line exists in the library allocations to support the
           curriculum library.
        Unit Response – The Vice President for Academic Affairs has recognized that funding
           must be increased to attain and maintain a robust curriculum library. To that end, she
           has increased our funding for the Curriculum Library by $15,000 for each of the next
           two years and between $10,000 - $15,000 each year thereafter. We have assigned a
           graduate assistant to survey all unit faculty members to see if they have
           recommendations for books and/or learning materials that we should purchase. Once
           that list is developed, it will be prioritized and purchases will be made.


E. University of South Dakota: Areas for Improvement recommended in 6 of 29 NCATE
                              standard elements.

     Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
        Areas for Improvement – Data collected by the unit are not systematically analyzed and
           interpreted at the unit level.
        Unit Response – The School of Education (SoE) at USD formalized a unit-wide
           Assessment Committee by placing it in the SoE By-Laws in 2005-2006 as a standing
           committee. The purpose of the committee is to oversee the development of a unit
           assessment plan, provide on-going dissemination of the plan, annually gather and
           summarize assessment data relevant to the unit plan for distribution to divisions and
           programs, collect year-end reports from divisions related to data-based decision-
           making, and create an annual report for the Administrative Council and Dean’s Office
           including a summary of actions and recommendations for changes to the assessment
           plan. The Assessment Committee has provided feedback for changes in the student
           and employer surveys sent out each year, and is currently working on interpretation
           and implication of student performance-based data from Fall 2005 and Spring 2006.
           Additionally, the SoE has formally added a second committee the Teacher Education
           Advisory Council (TEAC) to review the data as well. This committee is made up of
           leaders in each of the program areas from across campus. Data from the program
           areas is taken to them for review and recommendation on a semester basis.
           Implementation of the Teacher Education Assessment System (TEAS) software
           package began in the Spring of 2006. This system is used to collect and analyze
           student performance-based data, faculty data, census data, and institutional data to
           assist in the meaningful interpretation of data from multiple sources for unit and
                                                                                             30


       program planning. The position of SoE Assessment Coordinator is now permanently
       placed in the Dean’s Office as part of the role of an Assistant Dean.

Standard 4: Diversity
   Areas for Improvement – At the Advanced Preparation, the unit does not ensure that all
      candidates have opportunities to work with diverse faculty. The unit does not ensure
      that all candidates have opportunities to work with diverse P-12 students in clinical
      settings.
   Unit Response – While there has been only minor change in the degree of diversity in
      the School of Education during this past year, both the SoE and the university as a
      whole have been working on this issue. As a means of increasing the attention and
      efforts in recruiting faculty with diverse backgrounds, each faculty search committee
      in the SoE was assigned a minority member whose specific charge was to explore
      ways to enhance the pool of minority/diverse candidates. This resulted in larger pools
      and more interviews but did not increase the diversity of the faculty except to hire
      more women bringing the balance in the SoE closer to 50o%. The university in the
      development of its 5 year strategic plan is emphasizing an increase in faculty
      diversity and has hired a diversity officer to help in that task. The USD School of
      Education requires programs that did not have a diversity experience built into their
      work with P-12 students in clinical settings to find ways for this experience to take
      place. At present, advanced programs are planning these experiences and should
      have plans ready to present for implementation in the fall of 2007. To be included in
      this plan is a diversity criterion for all field experience evaluations to ensure that the
      focus of this aspect of the experience continues to be emphasized. As a further means
      of strengthening this commitment, the SoE entered into an agreement with Aldine
      School District in Texas to place student teachers. This district is considered to have
      a very diverse student population that has demonstrated excellent K-12 student
      performance, and is a district with a high percentage of poverty level students as well.

Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Evaluation
   Areas for Improvement – The unit does not provide agreed-upon, clearly stated, and
      accessible standards and processes related to renewal, tenure, and promotion.
   Unit Response – In December of 2005, the Office of the VPAA/Provost released the
      final version of the Faculty Expectations document that outlines the baseline
      performance for renewal, promotion and tenure and directed each unit (School of
      Education [SoE]) to develop additional unit specific guidelines for this process. The
      School of Education utilizing faculty and administrative committees developed
      guidelines for the unit that were adopted in the spring of 2006 and are now being
      implemented for the coming year. At the same time, the University adopted a new
      Appendix G (part of the COHE Contract) that outlines the various activities to be
      recognized in the areas of teaching, scholarship and creative activity, and service.
      The specific activities for the SoE guidelines were selected by the faculty, arranged
      into tiers and given weight in each area.

Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
   Areas for Improvement – The lack of a clearly articulated governance system within the
      unit hinders collaboration, related to unit governance and management, with unit
31


        faculty whose appointments reside in other colleges and schools. The unit’s
        workload policies are not clearly articulated, shared, and understood by all faculty,
        hampering faculty attention to scholarship and service.
     Unit Response –The School of Education developed, incorporated into its by-laws in
        March of 2006 and has been operating the past semester with a permanent standing
        committee, the Teacher Education Advisement Committee (TEAC) which is
        composed of membership from all areas of the university involved with teacher
        education, including the SoE, Fine Arts, and Arts and Sciences. The committee is
        charged with meeting regularly each semester to collaboratively develop and
        coordinate the teacher education policies and processes at USD. Additionally, the
        SoE, Fine Arts and Arts and Sciences faculty have been actively involved with the
        SD State department of Education’s review and adoption of new teacher education
        rules and regulations as related to the Specialty Professional Associations (SPAs)
        curricular alignment process and the NCATE/State partnership agreement. In May of
        2005, the Office of the VPAA/Provost released the final version of the Faculty
        Workload document and directed the units (School of Education) to develop unit
        specific policies related to workload. The SoE workload policy developed and
        reviewed internally by faculty and administrators was submitted to the VPAA and
        was accepted for implementation starting in the Fall of 2006. This has been
        implemented since Fall 2006.
                                                                                               32




Appendix C: Program Standards Receiving Met with Weakness and/or Not Met


A. Black Hills State University

   Birth Through Age 8 Early Childhood: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 4 for
      Rule 24:16:08:04. Use of authentic, performance-based assessment to monitor and report
      progress to families and school personnel. Courses identified to meet this standard
      include: SPED 460 (Family Systems and Professional Collaboration), ECE 488 (Student
      Teaching), ELED 495 (Practicum), and SPED 410 (Behavior Management of
      Exceptional Children).      (Students also complete SPED 431, Identification and
      Assessment in Special Education, 2 credits – however this course was not checked on the
      matrix from strand 4). The primary focus of the two content courses (identified on the
      matrix) is on assessment within the context of working with children with special needs
      and specific standardized tests. While these courses provide valuable information about
      assessment, more content is needed on authentic performance-based assessment. A
      broader view of assessment needs to be encouraged which exposes ECSE students to a
      greater understanding of authentic, performance-based assessment (i.e., definition; tools
      to accomplish; children’s portfolios).

   7-12 Science Education: Not met was indicated in Strand 5(a) for Rule 24:16:08:16. At
      least 50% of the coursework is to be completed at the upper division level. Currently,
      only 20 hours out of the 46 required in science are at the upper level division (43%).
          CHEM 112 and Lab – 4h                     PHYS 185 and Lab – 4h
          CHEM 114 and Lab – 4h                     PHYS 211 and Lab – 5h
          CHEM 326 and Lab – 5h                     PHYS 213 and Lab – 5h
          CHEM 342 – 4h                             PHYS 325 – 3h
          GEOL 201 or 203 and Lab – 4h              Required Upper Division Electives – 8h
      If the math classes required in the core are included in the calculation the percent drops
      even further. It should be noted that a new proposal has been submitted to the Board of
      Regents to replace the Physical Science Option with two alternatives; a major in
      Environmental and Planetary Science or a composite major through the Center of the
      Advancement of Mathematics and Science Education.                   The newly proposed
      Environmental and Planetary Science major will meet the requirements of 50%
      coursework in the upper division.

   7-12 Technology Education/Industrial: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 7 and
      Not met was indicated for Strand 9 for Rule 24:16:08:28. Most of this standard is being
      met. The part of the standard that is not being met is: using tools and materials similar to
      those in industry. In industry most companies use equipment and materials that are on
      the “cutting edge,” of technology, for example, robotic welders, programmable laser
      cutters, and other high technology tools. These machines are very expensive costing
      many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Black Hills State University does not have the
      funding to provide the students with similar experiences as industry. For Strand 9,
33


        reviewers indicated this standard cannot be met because the laboratories, facilities, and
        equipment are antiquated. The laboratories, facilities, and equipment need to be up-
        dated. The technology education majors that graduate from this program and are
        employed as technology education teachers in a school district usually have to spend
        extra days and hours in the laboratory “catching-up” on the equipment, class
        management, maintaining equipment, and developing curriculum.

     K-12 Special Education: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 2(a) and 2(b) for Rule
        24:16:08:45. Sources of documentation indicate that a 2-credit course in identification
        and assessment is not sufficient to prepare special education teachers for the demands in
        this area. There was little evidence of application of evaluation and other information in
        determining whether a student has the disability and requires special education or special
        education and related services. Student opinion surveys from SPED 431 Assessment in
        Special Education, Fall 2002, all indicated that the course should be a 3 to 4-credit
        course. Dr. Cooch, who teachers this course, shared this opinion, as well as, the
        cooperating teachers who were interviewed. There was also minimal evidence of
        assessments in the areas of prevocational/vocational and independent living skills.

     K-12 World Language Education: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 4(e) and 4(f)
        for Rule 24:16:08:48. These two standards are met, but with weakness – primarily
        because of the fact that with only one faculty member in the Spanish Department (with
        the exception of an adjunct member who teaches an introductory course), students have
        limited exposure to various cultures and contemporary ways of life in Hispanic countries.
        This faculty member does an exceptional job of teaching about culture, but a single
        person department offers neither the variety of courses nor the expertise in cultural
        knowledge that students will need to effectively teach a wide variety of cultures in the
        classroom.


B. Dakota State University

     K-8 Elementary Education/Special Education: Not met was indicated in CEC Standard 6
        Language. The reviewers indicated that it was not clear that the depth and breadth of the
        standard are met in regards to matching “their communication methods to an individual’s
        language proficiency and cultural and linguistic differences,” or that “they use
        communication strategies and resources to facilitate understanding of subject matter for
        individuals with ELN whose primary language is not English.”

     7-12 Computer Education: Not met was indicated in CS-IX Professional Development.
        This standard was not mapped in Section III – Relationship of Assessment to Standards,
        and that made it rather difficult to track through the assessments. Strength: Program
        coordinators recognize the weakness of lack of student involvement with professional
        organizations and groups and have proposed an initial step to address the problem.
                                                                                             34


C. Northern State University

   K-8 Elementary Education: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 9 and Strand 11(a)
      of Rule 24:16:08:05 K-8 Elementary Education. For Strand 9 reviewers noted that ELRN
      489 Electronic Portfolio syllabi have vague objectives with no evidence of scaffolding
      from Phase I to Phase IV. Students are given options as to what they want to include in
      their portfolio. Within four classes and over four semesters, candidates should be held
      accountable for progressively integrating technology into their teaching and learning.
      The instructor of record on each syllabus provides technical assistance and some
      evaluation, but is not held accountable for the connection between technology use in
      teaching and learning. It is evident that students know how to use technology as a
      teacher tool. However, little evidence was found as to whether the students can integrate
      technology into their lesson plans with their classes using it as a tool to further their
      learning. For Strand 11(a) reviewers indicated candidates identified the design of
      curriculum and instructional strategies for Kindergarten through sixth grade, but not for
      middle-level grades. There are elective classes available for learning about middle level
      teaching, but these classes are not required of elementary education majors. There were
      several upper classmen education candidates who indicated they were getting a K-6
      degree rather than a K-8 degree. Students commented that when asked if they felt well
      prepared to teach all K-8 grades many responded yes, if as long as they have to teach
      only grades 1-5.

   7-12 Science Education/Chemistry: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 2(a) and
      2(e) for Rule 24:16:08:16 7-12 Science Education/Chemistry. Candidates in this area are
      exposed to a wide range of experiences in each of the principals of chemistry,
      biochemistry, and inorganic chemistry. The concern is that candidates are not required to
      take biochemistry, and are recommended to complete Chem 460 Biochemistry.
      Candidates also expressed concern that they feel less prepared in areas of kinetic theory,
      thermodynamics, thermochemistry, electrochemistry, and quantum chemistry due to the
      difficulty of the subject area. Reviewers recommended that candidates should be
      required to take Chem 445 Physical Chemistry II.

   K-8 World Languages: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 1. The professors in
      the Department of Modern Language with their superior knowledge in other world
      languages incorporate linguistics seamlessly into the classroom, but because there is no
      specific professor of linguistics, we believe that this strand is not exactly met. An
      instructor in linguistics, would increase students’ comprehension in linguistics and
      perhaps increase the capacity of the University to offer an ESL program. This would
      benefit many departments (e.g. Modern Languages, Business, English, etc.)

   P-8 and/or 7-12 Principal Program: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 3(b) for
      Rule 24:16:09:01. Reviewers observed that they have the option but are not required to
      take a class specifically in the area of developing special education programs. New
      administrators who are recent graduates of the program stated that this was an area of
      weakness for them. Reviewers believed this is an extremely pertinent skill that aspiring
      principles should have because of the fact that most principals in South Dakota function
35


        in small districts where they will be the Director of Special Education. Candidates did not
        have sufficient specific knowledge on assessing data for the purpose of school
        improvement and achievement in the area of academic progress and performance; this is
        an area in need of improvement. New administrators who are recent graduates of the
        program stated that skills in this area, although covered, were not a point of emphasis in
        their coursework.

     P-12 School Counselor: Met with weakness was indicated in Strand 3(a) of the Rule
        24:16:10:01 P-12 School Counselor: Assessing and interpreting learning intelligence,
        aptitude, behaviors, interest, achievement, and patterns. Although various components
        are covered throughout the curriculum, it appears that South Dakota specific tests and
        other school counseling related assessment instruments are not emphasized. We
        recommend that relevant knowledge and skills about testing in a school counseling
        setting be introduced early in and throughout the program. Met with weakness was
        indicated in Strand 3(f) of the Rule 24:16:10:01 P-12 School Counselor: Referral
        processes to: Advocacy for the child. Advocacy is implied rather than specified in the
        syllabi. Candidates typically describe advocacy as a byproduct of consultation or
        networking rather than as a distinct concept. We recommend the competencies endorsed
        by the ACA for advocacy be used as a guideline for preparing candidates to assume this
        role within the school setting.


D. South Dakota State University

     None reported.


E. University of South Dakota

     None reported.
                                                                                         36




Appendix D: Supplemental Tables/Figures


                                           Figure D1
           Praxis II Subject and PLT Test Pass Rates by Institution - Five-Year Trends

               100.0%


                95.0%

                                                                             BHSU
                90.0%
                                                                             DSU
                                                                             NSU
                85.0%
                                                                             SDSU
                                                                             USD
                80.0%




                                          Figure D2
           Cumulative Praxis II Subject and PLT Test Pass Rates - Five-Year Trends

                100.0%
                          100.0%                    99.7%
                                   99.2%
                                                            98.0%
                                           97.4%
                 95.0%


                 90.0%

                                                                           Pass Rate
                 85.0%


                 80.0%
37



                                     Table D1
                    System-wide CAAP Pass Rates: Five-Year Trends
                    2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009            2009-2010
     Mathematics
       Candidates      98.3%       100.0%       98.7%      100.0%       99.5%
       All Others      97.8%        98.3%       98.7%       98.0%       98.6%
     Reading
       Candidates      96.5%       95.2%        97.4%       95.0%       97.5%
       All Others      96.2%       95.2%        96.6%       96.0%       96.1%
     Science Reasoning
        Candidates     99.7%       100.0%      100.0%      100.0%       99.5%
        All Others     99.6%        99.5%       99.5%       99.0%       99.4%
     Writing
       Candidates      93.4%       97.4%        96.7%       96.0%       97.0%
       All Others      93.6%       94.2%        93.8%       94.0%       93.0%




                                      Table D2
                    System-wide ACT Subtest Scores: Five-Year Trends
                     2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009           2009-2010
     English
       Candidates       20.8        22.1         22.2        22.4        22.6
       All Others       21.7        21.9         22.2        22.2        22.5
     Mathematics
       Candidates       21.2        22.2         22.5        22.6        22.9
       All Others       22.2        22.5         22.9        22.5        22.8
     Science Reasoning
        Candidates     21.7         22.6         22.6        22.7        22.6
        All Others     22.8         22.7         23.1        22.9        23.1
     Reading
       Candidates       21.9        23.1         23.0        23.5        23.4
       All Others       22.9        23.1         23.3        23.3        23.4
     Composite
       Candidates       21.6        22.6         22.7        22.9        23.0
       All Others       22.6        22.7         23.0        22.9        23.1

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:11/20/2012
language:Unknown
pages:38